Well, a scientific theory of creation is different when you ask different people. Different people have different defintions of what a scientific theory of creation really is.

For example, YOUR definition of a scientific theory of creation is probably as follows.

1. An impossibility2. A lame attempt that a Creationist may propose (which is clearly wrong)3. A terrific way to give yourself leverage in a debate because YOU think it is impossible and when someone shows you one you simply say it is not scientifically correct.

You are simply blind and not looking for a Creation model. I look forward to your insulting reply.

Well apparently everyone except Quetzal missed mine in the "why creation science isn't science" category. Unless Ibhandli thouroughly destroys my model, he is in no position to claim that he has never been presented one.

quote:Originally posted by Cobra_snake:Well apparently everyone except Quetzal missed mine in the "why creation science isn't science" category. Unless Ibhandli thouroughly destroys my model, he is in no position to claim that he has never been presented one.

3. 'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.' (L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.

4. 'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.'(Hubert P. Yockey [Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA], 'A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol.67, 1977, p.396

3. 'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.' (L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.

4. 'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.'(Hubert P. Yockey [Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA], 'A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol.67, 1977, p.396

Evolution is a religion?...thats a common diatribe by creationists and other evengelical nuts seeking to bring evolution DOWN to THEIR level so they can more effectively fight it. Evolution is not based on faith but one solid evidence and on probability thinking. And as evolution is a SCIENCE,its self correcting,meaning that frauds are exposed by other scientists when they are discovered,whereas creationists always try like hell to cover up their blunders and resist any change in their hypothesis,not on evidenciary ground but on DOGMATIC grounds. Just this week,scientists have discovered a possible genetic proof of macromutation/evolution which demonstrates that some species of flies were actually small sea dwelling creatures at one time. amusingly enough,i have not seen either you or TC comment on this...interesting...

quote:Originally posted by redstang281: I think this is the most common misunderstanding by evolutionists.

The belief of creation is not provable, it's a faith. The idea is that all science fits with the Biblical account of creation without compromising the clear teachings of the Bible.

Pedantic (again) but ... 'Belief of Creation' exists no one doubts that. Ultimately knowledge of whether or not God created all that is will either be gained when we die, or we will disappear without trace and so no longer care .. that I agree with.

All science fitting with the Biblical account of creation is anothermatter. If the biblical account of creation is your hypothesis, thenit is testable (to a degree).

I think it's a bit of a cop out, though, to say it's faith so Idon't have to prove it.

Why do you have faith in the biblical account of creation ?

Why is that account any more/less believable than evolution in termsof the origin of species ?

quote:Originally posted by redstang281:Now if we apply your laws to the theory of evolution we will find that evolution is not a science either.

Non of the evolution theorys could stand up to any of these. (keep in mind microevolution is testible and is part of creation)

It should have:1) testable hypotheses

The basic (abridged) hypothesis behind evolutionary theory is thatthe diversity of life on Earth developed over time via redistributionof allelle frequencies in individual populations in response tochanges in the environment. Genetic mutations played a part inthis process.

This hypothesis leads to predictions about what would be expectedto be seen in the world at large.

These predictions can be compared with observations to be validated.

If these predications are contradicted, then that part of thetheory to which they related is falsified.

quote:Originally posted by redstang281:2) confirming evidence

The majority of confirming evidence, whilst compelling for 'us'is dismissed as rubbish by most creationists.

It leads into discussions over the age of the earth, gets sidetrackedinto probabalistic debates over the likelyhood of abiogenesis, and suggestions that a consistent ordering of fossils within rock stratacould have occurred due to a global flood.

quote:Originally posted by redstang281:3) potential falsifications

See above.

quote:Originally posted by redstang281:Here's some important quotes:

2. 'In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.'

If observations are bent to fit evolutionary theory, these are picked up by peer review. I do NOT believe that an observation can be bentinto anything. If an evolutionary concept can explain observationsis that bending ?

Check out creationist refutations of evidence FOR evolution ifyou would like to see some fascinating tricks of hypothesis.

quote:Originally posted by redstang281:3. 'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.' (L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.

In what way is evolution the backbone of biology ?

It is one facet of enquiry into the biological world. It does NOTinform studies of physiology, genetics, eco-systems, biochemistry, etc. Quite the reverse in fact.

Failure to prove evolution has little to do with evidence, and much to do with politics, power, and religion.

quote:Originally posted by redstang281:4. 'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.'(Hubert P. Yockey [Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA], 'A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol.67, 1977, p.396

Faith is about beleiving in something without any evidence.If we as evolutionists were not concerned with evidence, why wouldquote so much of it, and attempt to explain it ?

Even the quote you provide says 'Has not yet been written', not thatit is in any sense impossible.

3. 'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.' (L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.

4. 'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.'(Hubert P. Yockey [Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA], 'A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol.67, 1977, p.396

No, redstang. It's not a common misunderstanding of evolutionists. It's not even a misunderstanding. Evolutionists KNOW that creationism is not a science. It's a belief, a faith - a religious one. That's why we laugh at the notion of 'creation science'.

Evolution, however, is completely different. It is in no sense a religion. it has:

Your 'model' wasn't a model. It was two claims that completely avoided anything unique and testable. Of course, if you would like to stop whining and post it again it can, again, be pointed out why it was useless.

Stop with this nonsense and provide a theory. I've already given you as much latitude as you could possibly have and your response so far was to post a could be scenario that wasn't scientific, but a "could be" scenario that was quickly pointed out to be wrong. Either provide a theory or admit you can't.